Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Patents United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Court Invalidates Motorola Message Syncing Patents 31

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the patently-obvious dept.
Dupple writes with news of another tech patent thrown out for obviousness. From the article: "On Friday, the High Court of London issued a ruling that said that one of Motorola's patents covering technology to synchronize messages across several devices should be invalidated. Originally, the patent covered the synching of messages across multiple pagers, but recently Motorola has used the patent in lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft for using similar message-syncing services in iCloud and on the Xbox, respectively. The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Court Invalidates Motorola Message Syncing Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Dictionary (Score:3, Funny)

    by crizh (257304) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:23AM (#42385753) Homepage

    Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.

    Satan is skating to work this morning.

    • by tqk (413719)

      Imagine a Judge whose dictionary has the same definition of 'obvious' as the rest of us.

      Imagine a /. editor who can see "syncing" and then allow "synching."

      Good to see another obvious patent go down in flames. "But, this is done on a computer!" Meh.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:21AM (#42385887) Homepage Journal

    The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.'"

    So does that mean that patents on the following will be invalidated as well:

    * email over (over a wireless network)
    * The hyperlink
    * Toolbars/button bars/ribbon bars
    * the double click
    * single-click purchase
    * app stores (over a wireless network)
    * Click to purchase upgrade (inside a smartphone app)
    * Rounded-off rectangles

    • Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.

      • by Swampash (1131503)

        You're confusing intellect with education.

        • You're confusing intellect with education.

          Your confusing intellect and education with brain washing...

          dang commie... we don't want none o' that!
          dang muzzies... we don't want none o' that!
          dang fags... we don't want none o' that!
          dang atheists... we don't want none o' that!

          • Obligatory Bertrand Russell quote (from memory, my bad if not word for word...)

            All men are born ignorant, not stupid: education makes them stupid.

      • Europeans are better endowed when it comes to matters of intellect, than Americans. So maybe this patent should be invalidated in Europe but not in the US.

        Yes, European history is chock full of illuminating examples of said enlightenment - must be nice to live in such a peaceful, civil place...

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      I wouldn't hold your breath. If you want to innovate best move to China and just ignore patents.

  • the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that 'was obvious to experts in the field at the time.

    What does "priority date from 1995" mean? Granted, there are thousands of patents like this that should be invalidated. But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then. Did it take seven years for it to be granted? And is the judge referring to the 1995 or 2002 date when he mentions the "expert in the field at that time?"

    • Re:Curious (Score:4, Informative)

      by WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @03:26AM (#42385995)
      This [patentlens.net] should explain it for you.
    • by Sique (173459)
      Obviously it was obvious then. We were syncing messages between different computer architectures for about a quarter of a century in 1995. What do you think the Internet Protocol is, beside a mechanism to sync messages over a wide range of hardware and architectures?
    • by Alomex (148003)

      But does that mean they filed for this patent in 1995? If so, it's wasn't all that obvious then.

      Push email got introduced in 1986 in IMAP if not earlier. Was the Motorola enhancement that much different that deserves a patent? the judge which look at the specifics of the case believes it is not.

  • That's not a very nice thing to do to Motorola right before Christmas.

You've been Berkeley'ed!

Working...